Schools are funded through property tax in most states so I am not sure that the logic holds.
But that aside- your argument would work equally well for any industry. Why pick sports in particular for government subsidy - particularly since it’s pretty clear that professional sports would be just fine financially with or without public support.
Why not leave government funding to missions that are inherently public in nature? Fire, police, public safety, public health, essential major infrastructure [other than stadiums], social help for the needy
I did not realize that you were talking about public funding of stadiums. I thought you were talking about their financial success from advertising dollars and attendance. I don’t object to some level of public funding if there is an expected high return on investment in terms of tax revenue generated through ticket sales, sales from supporting businesses, such as restaurants, share riding services, and the impact on facilitating the growth of a metro area, and perhaps reinvigorating it, and the like. But otherwise, I think sports stadiums and teams should be funded through private money.
If they do well then sales taxes and other market forces will spread the wealth through the community - with no need to risk government money.
The point is - it’s not government’s role to choose economic winners and losers. Who is to say what will better help Pittsburgh grow - a stadium, high-tech business around aerospace/Google/robotics/AI, healthcare, sports, or something else. Let the free market decide.
Meantime government might want to repair some of the many bridges in unsatisfactory condition before another one falls down.
Heard a US actor once say that his popular TV show was “hour drama” except that here in the UK his show was shown on BBC TV which does not run adverts so each episode was around 40 to 41 minutes long from titles to credits.
)